London Borough of Harrow (202121589)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121589

London Borough of Harrow

4 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the damp and mould.
2. Response to outstanding repairs.
3. Knowledge and information management.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has lived in the property for around 10 years with her two children aged 9 and 14. Both her and the children have been diagnosed with severe asthma and take medication to manage this. The resident had COVID on two occasions and still suffers with the effects of long covid.
The landlord has not provided any details about the property or the resident’s tenancy to this Service despite requests. The resident however has described the property as being made from breezeblocks with no insulation. She has said that mould has been an ongoing issue since she moved in. She also advised that the landlord put her on a scheme for insulation to be installed when she moved in 10 years ago but this has not been done.
The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the Decent Homes Standard and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair. It must carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time and it should be aware of the hazards associated with damp and mould and take action to remedy such disrepair.
The Housing Ombudsman’s damp and mould spotlight report, which was published in October 2021 (after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure), was written to help guide landlords on best practice when dealing with cases involving damp and mould. It sets out that landlords should ensure that their responses to such reports are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
The landlord has a damp and mould leaflet available on its website which provided advice on ventilation and how to reduce moisture in the air. It also says as follows:
1. If a resident has damp and mould in the property they are more likely to have respiratory problems, infections, allergies or asthma. Damp and mould can also affect the immune system.
2. If a resident has mould or condensation that has not gone away after following the guidance in the leaflet, they should speak to the landlord.
The landlord’s repairs charter outlines its repair responsibilities as follows:
1. A contractor will call the resident to make an appointment within 3 hours of a repair being reported.
2. If a resident is vulnerable it may schedule the repair faster than normal.
3. It categorises repairs depending on their seriousness. The repair timeframe ranges from 4 hours to 20 working days.
4. Water penetration is classed as a priority 2 repair and has a repair timeframe of between 1-5 working days.
5. For a batch repairs, such as to fences and trees, it has 90 days to review or complete this, subject to funding. Each quarter it will review such required repairs and if funds are available it will batch such works to be completed at the same time.
6. It will give the utmost importance to any issue that affects the resident’s health and safety.
The repairs charter also outlines the complaints procedure which states that the landlord has a 3 stage complaints process. If a resident is not happy after stage 3 they can refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman service. It says that it will take all complaints seriously and fully investigate them to put things right and learn to improve services.

Summary of events

The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s original complaint to this Service, however fortunately the resident had kept a copy which shared for this investigation. Within the complaint, which the resident submitted on 22 January 2021 she said as follows:
1. Repairs had been outstanding for months and had not been completed.
2. The landlord did not seem to understand the repairs she reported despite her providing photographs. As a contractor who attended did unnecessary work but did not fix the repair issue.
3. The insulation was “terrible” resulting in very expensive heating bills.
The landlord responded on 17 February 2021 at stage 1 and said as follows:
1. It was currently under a “lockdown protocol” regarding property inspections. Although not specifically stated, it has been concluded that this referred to the national lockdown due to COVID-19.
2. An inspection of the property was required but this would be on hold until normal working practises could resume.
3. Her query about the heating had been passed to its engineers and it would be in contact once the lockdown restrictions had been relaxed.
On 30 March 2021 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 as she had not received a response. She also said that there were outstanding repairs and further issues she wanted to raise.
The following day (31 March 2021) the landlord re-sent the stage 1 response and apologised as it had sent it to an incorrect email address.
That same day the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 and said the following issues were outstanding:
1. Water was building up by the back door, causing damp and mould to the inside area near the back door.
2. She had had to throw away a curtain, garden toys and shoes due to the mould growth on them.
3. A contractor had attended to look at the issue twice and had advised as follows:
  1. A surveyor was needed.
  2. The outer wall was dripping wet from the cold.
  3. The property was very poorly insulated which was an ongoing issue that needed to be resolved.
4. She said that it was costing a lot of money to keep the house warm.
5. The issues she had reported to the landlord via the repair form were not what was written on the contractor’s job sheet.
6. The contractor had attended on an earlier occasion and removed bits of the door to make it smaller. She said there was nothing wrong with the door and that the issue was the water building up in front of the door. She felt the contractor did not listen to her.
7. There was damp in the bathroom which had not been resolved.
8. The landlord had attended over a year ago to clean the mould and said it would arrange for a surveyor to visit. This visit had not happened.
9. The bathroom window was too small and the vent was insufficient. She said the window needed to be replaced with a bigger one.
10. She had made the landlord aware that she is severely asthmatic and that cleaning the mould with mould spray had a serious impact on her asthma.
11. She had spent a lot of money on mould products and paint for the bathroom.
12. The front fence had not been repaired since the year before. The landlord had sent a contractor in January 2021 but only the rear fence was repaired. When she queried this with the landlord it could not find the job on its system.
13. She had told the landlord about a tree in a neighbouring garden which blocked the sunlight and was not being maintained. She requested that it be removed.
14. She had asked the landlord over the years about when the exterior would be repainted as it looked “a mess”.
15. A ledge had been removed by the landlord at her request due to safety reasons. The area had not been repainted and the ledge had not been replaced.
16. The repairs team and contractors did not seem to be aware of the outstanding issues.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 30 April 2021. It responded at stage 2 on 28 May 2021 and said as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in resolving the repairs.
2. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, between December 2020 to mid-April 2021, surveyors had only been carrying out urgent health and safety inspections. It had since been able to arrange an inspection to address her repair concerns.
3. It had raised the following jobs with a target date of 26 June 2021 for completion:
  1. Replace spur to loose front fence post and secure section where they meet.
  2. Provide costs to place overhead canopy to front and back door.
  3. Treat and paint ceiling to bathroom and overhead light to door using anti fungus paint.
  4. Rake out mould effected and re-grout and re-seal around bath.
  5. Overhaul extractor fan to bathroom.
  6. Rake out reseal mould effected sealant to windows internally especially to dividing concrete support.
  7. Anti–mould paint concrete central support to lounge and bedroom window.
  8. Provide costs to core drill and place meshed vent covers to bathroom high level on return wall.
4. A contractor would contact her to arrange for the heating system to be inspected.
5. It had raised an order to obtain a quote for crowning the tree at the neighbouring property.
6. It concluded that the complaint had not been upheld “as the Stage 1 was only a Service request” and under normal circumstances the inspection would have taken place in a timely manner.
On 2 June 2021 the resident explained to the landlord that she had asked for it to consider her complaint at stage 3 and not stage 2 due to the time that had passed. She said she had not received a response (at stage 2 ) and wanted to further escalate her complaint.
The following day (3 June 2021) the landlord advised the resident that the member of staff would deal with her complaint when she returned to the office and it would be escalated as requested.
On 18 June 2021 the landlord explained to the resident that it had a 2 stage complaints process and that she could refer her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman.
On 20 December 2021 the resident referred her complaint to this Service and said as follows:
1. The issues she had experienced had caused her stress and frustration. She also said the damp and mould had impacted her and her children’s health.
2. She said she wanted the landlord to do as follows:
  1. Fit a bigger window in the bathroom.
  2. Re–tile, paint, clean and grout the bathroom.
  3. Inspect the radiator in the toilet.
  4. Insulate the house especially around the windows.
  5. Repaint the outside of the house.
3. She said that since making her complaint the landlord had done the following:
  1. Painted the tiles and re-grouted them on top on the mould.
  2. Repainted the ceiling.
  3. Repainted the windows were mould was present.
4. It had said that it would look at quotes for a bigger window but she had not heard anything since.
5. She said that a surveyor had attended numerous times over the last 9 years but nothing had changed. She had been advised that the damp and mould was caused by a structural issue due to how the property was built.
On 24 January 2022 this Service confirmed to the resident that the landlord had sent her a stage 2 response in May 2021 but it had sent it to an incorrect email address. This Service provided a copy to the resident. Following this the resident confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the stage 2 response as follows:
1. The bathroom works were not completed to a good standard and anti-fungus paint was not used. The grouting and sealant were left with mould on and as a result, the mould got worse.
2. The mould to the windows was not cleaned and was just painted over.
3. The rake out and reseal of the windows and bathroom did not take place.
4. The landlord had not changed the bathroom window. If this was not possible, it should have installed a vent in the wall but it had not done so.
5. The landlord had said that the property would be added to a list for the exterior paintwork. She had received no confirmation of this.
6. The issue with the tree had not been actioned.
7. She stated that as a resolution she would like the following:
  1. For the bathroom window to be changed.
  2. The issue regarding poor insulation to be resolved.
  3. The mould to be rectified.

Correspondence following the referral of the matter to the Housing Ombudsman

On 12 October 2022 the landlord met with the resident at the property. Following this on 20 October 2022 the landlord sent the resident an inspection report. It raised jobs as follows:
1. Renew kitchen and bathroom extractor fans.
2. Quote for loft insulation.
3. Re–grout with mould proof sealant around bath and use anti-mould grout in the bathroom.
4. Check the bathroom radiator to ensure it is working to its maximum capacity.
This Service spoke to the resident on 21 September 2023 who advised as follows:
1. A mould company had surveyed the property and installed a ceiling/loft vent. This had not improved the mould. It had however created a stream of cold air and the nearby area smelt musty from the loft.
2. The landlord would not change the bathroom window. It fitted a new extractor fan in the bathroom but this had no effect on the mould.
3. The mould was mainly in the bathroom and around the bathroom windows. The landlord painted over the mould directly onto the concrete breezeblock beam near the window. It also re-painted the bathroom ceiling but had not finished re-grouting the tiles or re-sealing them.
4. She reiterated that she had been advised that the mould was due to the property being made of breezeblocks and having no insulation. Other houses in the block had the same issue. The landlord had previously temporarily decanted her neighbour to install insulation.
5. In early September 2023 a surveyor advised her that the mould could be caused by the way she lived, with her children leaving wet flannels on the bath.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said that she believes that the damp and mould at the property has impacted upon her and her children’s severe asthma. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s views, it is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the damp and mould and the resident or her children’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her or her children’s health had been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.
Whilst this investigation cannot decide on the causation of health conditions, it has considered if any general distress and inconvenience was caused to the resident as a result of errors by the landlord.
This investigation was made more difficult as the landlord failed to supply the information that had been requested of it by this Service in 2022 and again in 2023 in order to establish a full understanding of what steps it had taken to address the resident’s concerns. This investigation has therefore had to rely on the limited correspondence provided and records kept by the resident.

Response to the damp and mould

The resident reported to the landlord that the property had damp and mould when she moved in (10 years ago) and it assured her that it had added her to its list for the property to be insulated. This possible solution was supported by the surveyors who confirmed that the property was not adequately insulated which had caused the damp and mould. The resident also reported that other properties in the vicinity experienced the same issues, with one property having had insulation installed. Despite being aware of the issue for 10 years and being told of the remedy required by its own surveyors, the landlord has taken no action to insulate the property. In addition, it provided no indication of the timeframe within which the resident could expect to have to wait to have this done. This was not reasonable and raised questions about whether the property was in a reasonable condition and met the decent homes standard of having thermal insulation.
It is acknowledged that the landlord was restricted in the action it could take to remedy the damp and mould during the COVID-19 lockdown. Once the restrictions had been eased, the landlord took some action, namely re-painting and re-grouting in the bathroom. These ‘cosmetic’ actions however did not address the cause of the mould and as such, the mould returned within a matter of months. Given the landlord’s prior knowledge of the issues with the thermal insulation of the property it would have been a reasonable expectation that the landlord deliver a more proactive and comprehensive response in order to provide a solution to the overall damp and mould issues at this stage.
It is clear that the resident followed the advice contained in the landlord’s damp and mould leaflet by alerting it when the mould returned. Whilst such guidance on tackling damp and mould is appropriate, this Service has noted that it does not include any information on the actions that the landlord will take following such a report. An order has been made in regard to this below.
It is noted that by the beginning of 2022 the landlord had not taken any further steps to address the cause of the mould identified by the surveyor (the lack of insulation) or the suggestion by the resident that a larger bathroom window could help. It appears that the landlord did give some consideration to a new window in late 2022 but concluded that replacement was not possible. It took some further action and replaced the bathroom extractor fan and fitted a vent into the loft. Although these were reasonable actions for the landlord to have taken there is no evidence that it followed up with the resident to see if these had solved the damp and mould issue.
Upon reporting the damp and mould again in the autumn of 2023, the surveyor reiterated the cause as being the lack of insulation. Despite being told this again, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to address this.
In line with the HHSRS the landlord has a responsibility to keep its properties free from hazards such as damp and mould. It was also aware that the resident and her children were particularly vulnerable due to them all suffering from severe asthma. The resident had reported the cold in the property and the surveyor had twice indicated the lack of insulation. This is something that could reasonably be expected to have a significant impact on a vulnerable household. The landlord itself acknowledges the dangers of mould in its online leaflet and it should have been proactive at ensuring it found a long term solution. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or prioritised addressing the cause of the mould, contrary to its repairs charter.
Under the landlord’s repairs charter it should have booked an appointment to assess the damp and mould within 3 hours of receiving the report. There is no evidence that it did so. Although damp and mould is not specifically mentioned in the charter, it is noted that water penetration is classed as a priority 2 repair with a repair timeframe of 1-5 working days, which would have been a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to have attended to assess the issue. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded in accordance with this timeframe in investigating and resolving the issue.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould is clear that landlord’s should investigate damp and mould thoroughly to identify the cause. It is also clear that structural issues with a property should be addressed and that the resident’s lifestyle should not be assumed to be the cause of damp and mould. It was concerning that the resident said the surveyor had advised her in September 2023 (after the publication of the spotlight report) that the mould could be due to her children’s wet flannels being left over the bath. This was not appropriate given that it had already been suggested by surveyors that the damp and mould was caused by the structure of the building.
In summary the landlord did not act in line with the relevant legislation or its repairs charter in addressing the damp and mould. There is no evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities in actioning the repair.
This Service expects landlord’s to take action to put things right when things have gone wrong. At no point did the landlord acknowledge its failings in addressing the damp and mould and there is no evidence of it having given any apology or consideration of compensation for its failings.
The landlord failed to act on the surveyors insulation reports despite being aware of the ongoing issues at the property. It failed to consider the impact of this on the vulnerable household. It was not proactive in remedying the source of the damp and mould and did not seek to address this further when the solutions it put in place proved to be ineffective at tacking the damp and mould. These failures amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact of these failings on the vulnerable resident, compensation of £600 has been awarded. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Response to outstanding repairs

For ease, each of the outstanding repair issues have been addressed separately below.

The heating

The resident raised an issue with the heating with the landlord in early 2021. This report was not provided to this Service by the landlord so the exact date of this is unknown. Due to the pandemic restrictions in place this job was not arranged until May 2021. Given the unprecedented national lockdown, this timeframe would have been reasonable in the circumstances. Unfortunately however this repair did not in fact take place until October 2022 when the landlord again raised a job to check the radiator. The landlord provided no evidence to show if and when the repair was completed.
Whilst it is acknowledge that the pandemic impacted on the landlord’s ability to action non-emergency repairs, it has provided no explanation for why it took just under two years for this repair to be investigated. This timeframe was not reasonable and was not in line with the landlord’s repairs charter which classes a partial heating failure as a priority 3 repair, with a maximum repair timeframe of 20 working days.

Front fence

It appears the resident reported that the front fence needed repairing in 2020. When a contractor attended however only the rear fence was repaired. The landlord then advised the resident that it could not find the repair job for the front fence on its system. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have systems in place to provide accurate records of outstanding repairs. Upon being notified of this, the landlord took no action to put things right.
Even if the repair had not been recorded on its system, the damage to the front fence would have been apparent to the landlord and its contractors whenever they attended the property due to its position at the front of the property. The landlord therefore would have had constructive notice that the repair was required. Despite this, it did not take steps to action the repair.
Although fencing is included in the repairs charter as a batch repair the landlord told the resident that it would be fixed by 26 June 2021. It was therefore reasonable for her to expect the repair to be completed by this time. At the time of writing this report (October 2023), this Service has seen no evidence that the fence has been repaired.

The neighbour’s tree

The resident made the landlord aware of the issue with the tree in March 2021 however the landlord took no action on this until May 2021. Whilst it is acknowledged this was during the period of COVID-19 restrictions, the landlord could have been proactive and viewed the tree via a video call or from photographs from the resident. There is no evidence that it took any such action to investigate the issue.
Although the landlord advised the resident that it would arrange a quote for the work, there is no evidence that this was actioned or that this work has been done. The landlord has provided no explanation for the delays in actioning is which was not reasonable and was not in line with its repairs charter.

The exterior of the property

The resident raised the condition of the property exterior as an issue in March 2021. Despite the landlord advising the resident in January 2022 that it would add the property to its list to be painted, at the time of writing this report (October 2023), the landlord has not carried out the paintwork nor has this Service seen any evidence that it has told the resident when she can expect it to be done.
Whilst exterior paintwork is often done on a schedule every set number of years, the landlord should have been clear in its communication with the resident when her property was due to have the paintwork done. Instead it has led her to believe that this is something it will be actioning in the near future which was not appropriate.
In summary there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the outstanding repairs. It has not keep the resident informed of when the works will be completed and has not actioned the repairs in line with its repairs charter.
Despite acknowledging in its complaint response that repairs were outstanding, the landlord did not offer an apology or take any steps to put things right which was not in line with the dispute resolution principles. To acknowledge the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings, compensation of £500 has been ordered. Further orders have also been made below to address the outstanding repairs.

Knowledge and information management

This Service has already noted above that the landlord did not have an accurate record of the repair needed to the resident’s front fence. It is of concern that in addition to this example of poor record keeping, the landlord has not been able to provide this Service with the repair log for the property or a number of other key pieces of information requested over a year ago. Despite having been issued with a complaint handling failure order in respect of this, the landlord still did not provide this information when requested again in 2023.
It is concerning that the landlord sent both the stage 1 and 2 complaint reposes to an incorrect email address. Whilst it is acknowledged that mistakes can happen, upon realising that it had used the incorrect email address at stage 1, the landlord should have amended this on its system to ensure that future correspondence was sent to the correct email address. It is clear that this did not happen and the landlord continued to use the incorrect email address. With emails being one of the main methods of communication and the potential for data breaches, this is something the landlord should have put right as soon as it became aware of its error.
Despite the landlord having sent the stage 2 response, it then proceeded to inform the resident that it would escalate the complaint upon the return of the member of staff. Following this, it then provided contradictory information in advising the resident that she had completed its internal complaints procedure. In addition the information given by the landlord in regard to its complaints procedure (that it had 2 stages) was in contradiction to the information contained in its repairs charter which says it has 3 stages.
Whilst this Service has made it clear to the landlord, via the Code, that it should have a 2 stage complaints process, it is concerning that the charter available on its website is not in line with the Code and is contrary to the information given to residents by its staff.
The landlord’s complaints process signposts residents to the Local Government Ombudsman Service but does not included signposting to this Service. This is not appropriate and an order has been made in respect of this below.
The Housing Ombudsman spotlight report (May 2023) on knowledge and information management identified that this was a key issue across member landlords. The findings of this report are intended to assist landlords in improving this essential aspect of their service delivery. This is something the landlord should review and adjust its processes as required. Given the lack of records of repair issues, errors with basic record keeping and contradictory information on the complaints process, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management. Orders have been made to address these failings below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of:
1. The landlord’s response to the damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s response to the outstanding repairs.
3. The landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Reasons

The landlord failed to act on the surveyors insulation reports despite being aware of the ongoing issues at the property. It failed to consider the impact of this on the vulnerable household. It was not proactive in remedying the source of the damp and mould and did not seek to address this further when the solutions it put in place proved to be ineffective at tacking the damp and mould
The landlord did not action the outstanding rears in a timely manner or line with its repairs charter.
The landlord did not ensure that accurate records of repairs were kept, it failed to record the resident’s email address correctly and then failed to rectify this error. It also provided contradictory information on the complaints process to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this case
2. Pay the resident a total of £1100 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £600 to acknowledge the impact of the landlord’s failings in responding to the reports of damp and mould on the resident who was vulnerable.
  2. £500 to acknowledge the impact and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in responding to and actioning the outstanding repairs.
3. Confirm that the following actions have been completed or within 4 weeks of this decision ensure it has:
  1. Investigated the prospect of insulations as per the findings of the surveyor
  2. Investigated alternatives to resolve the issue of damp and mould considering the replacement of the bathroom extractor and vent in the loft did not resolve the issue.
  3. Inspected the building structure and whether there are any further actions that can be taken
  4. Provide correspondence to the resident and Ombudsman in relation to the actions taken above.
4. Confirm that the following works have been completed or within 4 weeks of this decision ensure it has a schedule of works in place to resolve:
  1. The radiator and heating issue.
  2. The repair of the front fence.
  3. The work to the neighbour’s tree.
  4. The external paintwork.
5. The landlord should work with the resident to minimise disruption and ensure effective use of time where possible, also providing explanation where several operatives cannot attend at the same time.
6. Amend the resident’s email address on its system to ensure it is correct.
7. Review its repairs charter, which contains the complaints procedure, to ensure it corresponds with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. The landlord should consider whether it would benefit from a separate complaints policy, it should ensure information in respect of its complaints procedure are consistent. The policy should include appropriate signposting to this Service.
8. Review its process for record keeping and information management in light of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report to ensure accurate records or repairs are kept and any errors are amended in a timely manner.
9. Review its policies in light of the spotlight report on damp and mould and consider whether a damp and mould policy should be established.
10. Provide staff training on the spotlight report and how to appropriately respond to reports of damp and mould.